Hello reviewers and other EJOLTs colleagues,
This is my draft paper; it has passed through the process of blind-review. I have tried to address most of the issues that the blind-reviewers raised.
I enjoyed writing this paper; I hope you enjoy reading it. I would really be happy to receive your comments I am sure they would help strengthen my paper. Looking forward.....
Love,
Swaroop Rawal
Hi Swaroop,
I really enjoyed reading your paper, and your enjoyment from engaging in Living Theory research was palpable. Reading your paper also provided a learning experience for me - while I am quite familiar with pedagogy and andragogy, I had not come across the concept of heutagogy previously.
There are just a couple of things that would make the paper more accessible to readers. You mention the plural structure of the paper and because of this, a little more clarity is needed, for example in making the context of a particular section more explicit. This might be just one sentence as a signpost for your reader, when you move on to another context.
You mentioned carrying out research with three generations and I wondered did you mean with three cohorts of students, as the research was spread over fifteen years, and this would not encompass three generations?
There are some grammatical/spelling errors that I have marked on the paper.
I look forward to the next iteration, Swaroop! I will attach the guideline form here and will then upload the annotated paper.
Kind regards,
Bernie.
Hi Swaroop,
I have read the latest iteration of your paper, where you addressed my comments, and it reads very well now. I haven't yet seen the version addressing the comments of the other reviewers but just thought that, in the meantime, I'd send you my thoughts so that you could incorporate them in your next iteration.
There is only one sentence that I thought needed clarification, which might be easily done by breaking it into two sentences.
Sindberg and Lipscomb 2005 is cited in the text but is not included in the References.
There are a number of places where a space between words is omitted. I don't know how this occurred as it wasn't in your original version!
Other than these minor issues, I would be happy to recommend your paper for publication, Swaroop.
Kind regards,
Bernie.
Dear Bernie, Abdul, and Neil,
Thank you very much for all the trouble you have taken to review my paper. It was interesting communicating with you.
I am posting the latest iteration of my article. I have answered most of your questions in the previous replies. In this post, I will explain a few points which are common to all three.
1. Living Educational Theory (with upper case) refers to a lexical definition of meaning which distinguishes Living Educational Theory research is a unique field of educational research activity.
Living Educational Theory research can be conceptualised as the process that a practitioner researcher engages in to create their own living-educational-theory (with lower case, hyphenated). A living-educational-theory is an educational practitioner's explanation of their educational influence in their own learning, the learning of others and the learning of social formations.
· Living Educational Theory can be abbreviated to Living Theory; shorthand versions are LET and LT.
· living-educational-theory can be abbreviated to living-theory; shorthand versions are l-e-t and l-t.
Thus, Living Educational Theory is the research paradigm and living-educational-theory constitutes the individualised descriptions and explanations of the processes that individuals engage in order to improve their practice. Their accounts are a contribution to Living Educational Theory.
2. A Patchwork Text
I have added this… The first ‘patch’ is the ‘miracle cartoon’; the second is the introduction and explains the idea behind the writing of this paper. The third ‘patch’ is a poem written by me in 2009 about my experiences as a doctoral student. Each section is a ‘patch’ and so is every photograph and video, my students’ and my reflections and so on, make the other patches together with the second-last ‘patch’ which is a forward-looking epilogue.
I would not like to ‘add just one sentence as a signpost for your reader, when you move on to another context’ ... as suggested by you as I believe it goes against the spirit of a Patchwork Text. I would rather delete all references to Patchwork Text if you continue to feel it is not being understood.
However, I have used this style before and published an article using this style (Ukani and Rawal, 2016) additionally, my Ph.D. thesis is also written as a Patchwork Text
In any case in a normal article when one moves from one topic to another the author merely adds a heading, which I have already done. In a normal article/paper one does not really add a line of introduction to each section.
Having said this, if you really feel I am not being understood I am prepared to have a relook at my paper and go in for a rewrite, because at the end of the day I feel you, my first readers are very important to me.
3. Thanks, Neil, I have corrected the Reference list.
4. I have permission for the photographs used, and all are referenced.
5. Sorry about the spacing issue, that happens when the article is posted on the forum. No matter how many times you recheck it continues to happen. But that will be taken care of; I am sure, before the publishing.
I hope I have addressed all your queries.
Thanking you,
Love,
Swaroop
Hi Swaroop,
I have read the latest iteration of your paper and many of the issues have been resolved, e.g. the spacing is now correct. There are just a couple of places where a little more clarity would really help your reader. One of these is in the new piece you added: Each section is a ‘patch’ and so is every photograph and video, my students’ and my reflections and so on, make the other patches together with the second-last ‘patch’ which is a forward-looking epilogue. I think that if you split the sentence in two, beginning the second sentence at 'my students' and my reflections...', it would be more intelligible to your readers. The second one is:
I agree with Neil that signposting the various phases of the Patchwork Text would be of help to your reader, in particular on page 14, where you have the heading 'The Pedagogy-Andragogy-Heutagogy Continuum', as it is not at all clear how this relates to the previous section or to the Patchwork Text.
The Sindberg and Lipscomb reference needs to be added to the references section.
Other than these few issues, which are mainly for clarification purposes, I think your paper is almost ready, Swaroop.
Kind regards,
Bernie.